2016 PLP 502 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus GHULAM KHADIJA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2016 PLP 502 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus GHULAM KHADIJA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Administration of justice |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2016 PLP 502 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), (b) Administration of justice as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2016 PLP 502 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2016 PLP 502 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ANWAR — Petitioner Versus GHULAM KHADIJA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Tariq Hussain for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VIII, R.10
Written statement, non-filing of
Scope
Trial Court granted adjournment for filing of written statement which was challenged by the plaintiff
Revisional Court while accepting the revision struck off right of defence of defendant
Revisional Court without adverting to the record and law applicable to the case accepted the revision petition
Trial Court did not pass a specific order to file written statement
Revisional Court had struck off the valuable right of defendant to file written statement
Litigant could not be deprived from his valuable right
Impugned order passed by the Revisional Court was harsh which was not sustainable
Law would favour adjudication on merits instead of technicalities
Defendant was given only one opportunity to file written statement
Defendant was directed to appear before the Trial Court on the date fixed and file his written statement
If defendant failed to file his written statement then his right of defence would be deemed to be struck off
Constitutional petition was accepted in circumstances.
Law would favour adjudication on merits instead of technicalities.
Judgment & Decree
ALI AKBAR QURESHI, J.
This Constitutional petition is directed against an Order dated 16.06.2011, whereby the learned appellate court accepted the revision petition against the Order dated 21.12.2010, passed by the learned trial court.
2. Shortly the facts as stated in the record are, that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.24,000/- on account of damages. The petitioner/defendant appeared in response of the notice issued by learned trial court through his counsel. The learned counsel engaged by the petitioner/defendant submitted his wakalatnama and sought time to file the written statement. On the next date the petitioner could not file written statement and the case was adjourned to 23.11.2010, 21.12.2010 and 24.01.2011. The respondent being aggrieved of the adjournments granted by the learned trial court filed a revision petition. The learned Addl: District Judge/Revisional Court after hearing the arguments of the parties accepted the revision and struck off the right of defense of the petitioner. Hence, this Constitutional petition.
3. No one has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents despite service, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
4. As appears from the record, the learned trial court to file the written statement granted adjournments in routine to the petitioner, who could not file the written statement on the first date fixed by the learned trial court for the said purpose. Against the said order the respondent filed the revision petition before the learned Addl. District Judge, Bhakkar. The learned Addl. District Judge, Bhakkar, without adverting to the record and law applicable to this case, accepted the application and struck off the valuable rights of the petitioner. It is revealed from the record, that the learned trial court did not pass a specific order to file the written statement therefore, this type of the harsh order passed by the revisional Court is not sustainable and a litigant cannot be deprived from his valuable right. Even otherwise the law always favours the adjudication on merits instead of beating the litigants on technicalities.
5. In view of above, the petitioner is given only one opportunity to file the written-statement.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial court on 12.10.2015 and file his written statement on 16.10.2015. In case of failure the right of the defense of the petitioner to file the written statement shall be deemed to be struck off. No order as to cost. ZC/M-292/L Petition allowed.